U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-24-2015, 12:29 PM
 
23,093 posts, read 12,667,261 times
Reputation: 2955

Advertisements

Another cook, quack, right wing climate denialist take on global warming.. Fryman Dyson


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs

 
Old 05-24-2015, 12:46 PM
 
Location: The land where cats rule
10,946 posts, read 8,235,271 times
Reputation: 3602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist View Post
No one can figure out where that 97% figure came from. No one can prove that it's true.
Just another of odannys unfounded claims that he expects to have accepted because he said it.
 
Old 05-24-2015, 12:51 PM
 
Location: Where you aren't
1,245 posts, read 754,380 times
Reputation: 512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjay51 View Post
Just another of odannys unfounded claims that he expects to have accepted because he said it.
They are politicizing it, and attacking their opponents while doing it. Check out this "When a politician says, “the debate is over,” you can be sure of two things: the debate is raging, and he’s losing it.”

 
Old 05-24-2015, 12:52 PM
 
Location: The land where cats rule
10,946 posts, read 8,235,271 times
Reputation: 3602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips View Post
No. Golbal warming is not based on computer models; it is base on scientific facts - empirical evidence that is observable, measurable, verifiable. Get with the program (vix. scientific method). Science is not determined by political correctness.
"Global warming" is a prediction of weather in the future, based on assumptions provided by computers.

Hence "computer models" are used and can be made to say anything the programmers want them to produce.

Get with the program? Which program? No scientific method used, just pushing towards the pc solution.
 
Old 05-24-2015, 12:57 PM
 
Location: The land where cats rule
10,946 posts, read 8,235,271 times
Reputation: 3602
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny View Post
You don't understand climate change, clearly. You have lots of company on this thread, and every other thread on this forum discussing climate change.
Someone doesn't understand climate change, but I suspect it is you and not everyone else.
 
Old 05-24-2015, 01:02 PM
 
10,477 posts, read 3,948,320 times
Reputation: 5130
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny View Post
97% of scientists studying the earths climate have concluded that mankind is accelerating climate change.

3 out of 4 Americans believe in climate change.

However, when you watch the news and this topic being debated, it is one scientist speaking the truth, and some man or woman with no scientific expertise who is dismissing the findings of a scientist voicing an opinion shared by 97% of his colleagues.

With respect to Wendell Phillips, how about a statistically accurate discussion of the topic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg
Where is the backup showing that 97% of either all scientists, or even just climate scientists believe in this AGW alarmism hypothesis? Could you show me that please? You say that it exists, and yet nobody is apparently capable of producing it, including you.

The reason you cannot produce it is because it does not exist. This number is a baseless fabrication.

Prove me wrong if you can. I am sure that if you could, you would. But you can't, so you won't.

As far as the 3 of 4 Americans believing that the Earth's climate changes, that is way low. The Earth's climate has been changing since the Earth was first formed, and will continue to change until it is ultimately destroyed, which pretty much everyone knows.

The only people who even come close to denying that the Earth's climate is naturally in a state of constant change are the AGW alarmists, who appear to believe that a static climate is somehow normal, achievable and sustainable.

It isn’t.
 
Old 05-24-2015, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,828 posts, read 31,668,718 times
Reputation: 12569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjay51 View Post
"Global warming" is a prediction of weather in the future, based on assumptions provided by computers.

Hence "computer models" are used and can be made to say anything the programmers want them to produce.

Get with the program? Which program? No scientific method used, just pushing towards the pc solution.
No, climate change is evident today from observed measurements....No computer models needed. Observed Change | National Climate Assessment
 
Old 05-24-2015, 02:17 PM
 
23,093 posts, read 12,667,261 times
Reputation: 2955
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
No, climate change is evident today from observed measurements....No computer models needed. Observed Change | National Climate Assessment
Yes, it's been warming. Observations confirm it. Decadal trend rates no different now than end of 19th century, when human emissions were minuscule compared with today.



BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
 
Old 05-24-2015, 03:22 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,828 posts, read 31,668,718 times
Reputation: 12569
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge View Post
Yes, it's been warming. Observations confirm it. Decadal trend rates no different now than end of 19th century, when human emissions were minuscule compared with today.



BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
What is your point? A lesson in cherry picking? Why did you neglect to include the natural forcings that influenced temperature changes during the time periods mentioned? Why did you not include the answer to the question on the graphic?

Quote:
Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Quote:

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
 
Old 05-24-2015, 03:39 PM
 
Location: Central Illinois -
21,364 posts, read 14,279,693 times
Reputation: 14503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjay51 View Post
Just another of odannys unfounded claims that he expects to have accepted because he said it.
Do you know where the claim comes from? The claim comes from those climate scientists who are on record, with peer reviewed research, who say that mankind is not contributing to a warming planet.

To say that three percent are submitting research disputing mankind's role in climate change is probably being very generous. Take away the large payments to "scientists" like Willie Soon, recently exposed as I linked to earlier in this thread, and the number is likely down to almost zero.

Science doesn't lie. Climate scientists with an agenda do lie. See Willie Soon for the reason a climate researcher would lie.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top